South Dakota Legislature betraying our history and ignoring citizens with efforts to limit ballot initiatives
In 1889, our state was formed with a Constitution that created a representative republic similar to our federal government and all but one other state. It has a judiciary, an executive branch and bicameral legislature to perform the functions of governing the state.
But the previous century had shown the founders that it was unwise to entirely trust the representatives to do the right thing. We had seen a century of fraud, corruption, and mismanagement. So, they designed fixes for three recurring problems.
Persons were elected and later found to be unworthy of the position. The fix was to include a provision in the constitution for “recall” — the ability to hold a second election to oust persons who should not be holding that office.
The legislators often enacted laws that were not in the public interest. The fix was to include a provision for “referendum” where the people themselves could invalidate a poor law.
The legislators often failed to enact legislation that would be for the public good. This fix was to include a provision for “initiative” — the ability of the citizens to enact laws when the legislature fails to do so.
These measures introduced the idea of a democratic republic, and South Dakota was the first to be a true democratic republic where the best of both representative republic and pure democracy are included in the same constitution. The Legislature and governor manage the day-to-day affairs of government, and when they make the inevitable mistake, the Constitution has provisions for correcting them.
All these measures have a common methodology. They require that the citizens gather a certain number of signatures on a petition demanding a recall election, or to refer a law or initiate a law. If sufficient signatures are gathered, the measure is sent to the citizens to vote. The citizens then decide whether to accept or reject the proposal.
The only weakness in the process is that the Legislature is allowed to define the process. The process definitions worked well, and for more than a century the citizens have used the provisions successfully to thwart bad laws and enact good ones when the wishes of the citizenry and the Legislature differed.
For over a century, the Legislature has accepted the will of the people. However, in recent years, the relationship between positions taken by legislators and those desired by citizens has conflicted more often. Our legislators have regularly taken their orders from the doctrine of their Washington politicians on matters of public policy rather than represent the citizens of South Dakota.
Worst of all, our legislators have taken the corrections personally, as an insult. They are offended that the public does not agree with them and have enacted measures to dramatically curb the ability of citizens to correct them. Collectively, these measures now make it logistically impossible to bring an initiative to the public. In effect, the Legislature has by law voided the initiative provision of the Constitution.
These laws are a terrible mistake, yet the laws themselves prevent the public from fixing them. This is something that should not escape the notice of jurists, and I am (mostly) confident that the South Dakota Supreme Court will restore the initiative provision of the Constitution. But that is not guaranteed.
South Dakota was the first state to give the initiative process to its citizens.
Will it be the first to take it away from them?
John Cunningham of Sioux Falls has spent his career in local government finance, including in Fulton County, Ga., and Atlanta. He has a master of public administration from Harvard and has done consultant work in four foreign countries. This column first appeared on the Change Agents of South Dakota website.
Photo: public domain, wikimedia commons
